Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2006 Page 11 of about 159 results (0.136 seconds)

Mar 23 2006 (SC)

Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Additional S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-23-2006

Reported in : 2006(196)ELT385(SC); JT2006(4)SC78; 2006(3)SCALE477; (2006)4SCC303

ashok bhan, j.1. leave granted in special leave petition (civil) nos. 22905 - 22906 22905 - 22906 of 2003.2. this judgment shall dispose of civil appeal no. 773 of 2001 against the final order no. 22 of 2000-ad in appeal no. c/330/97-ad dated 2.2.2000 passed by the customs, excise & gold (control) appellate tribunal, new delhi [for short 'the tribunal']; civil appeals arising out of slp (c) nos. 22905 -22906 22905 -22906 of 2003 against the final order no. 10/03-ad and misc. order no. 9/03-ad dated 13.6.2003 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi in appeal no. c/586/2001-ad with c/misc./100/2002-ad; civil appeal nos. 7159-7161 of 2004 against the final order nos. 14-16/2004-nb(a) dated 1.7.2004 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi in appeal nos. c/260/2002-ad, c/596/2002-ad and c/687/2002-ad; and civil appeal no. 7162 of 2004 against the final order no. 17/2004-nb(a) dated 1.7.2004 passed by the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, new delhi [for short 'the tribunal'] in appeal no. c/14/2003-ad.3. these appeals are interconnected and pertain to the same cause of action. civil appeal no. 773 of 2001 is against the final order imposing anti-dumping duty for a period of five years, civil appeals arising out of slp(c) nos. 22905-22906 22905-22906 of 2003 are directed against the orders passed in 'mid term review' and civil appeal nos. 7159-7162 of 2004 are against the order passed for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2006 (SC)

Rodemadan India Limited Vs. International Trade Expo Center Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-17-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3456; 2006(2)ARBLR83(SC); 2006(3)AWC2262(SC); (2007)1CALLT18(SC); [2006]131CompCas326(SC); (2006)5CompLJ191(SC); 2006(3)CTC557; [2006(3)JCR3(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC203;

b.n. srikrishna, j.1. this is an application under section 11(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for appointment of a presiding arbitrator/ chairperson of the arbitral tribunal under the arbitration agreement. it has been placed before me as the person designated by the chief justice to act under section 11(6) of the act.2. the respondent-company has a lease of the land situated at plot no. a-11, sector-62, noida from the new okhla industrial development authority for a period of ninety years. the respondent wanted to construct and develop an exhibition center on the said land. there were negotiations between the petitioner-company and the respondent-company, as a result of which an exclusive management agreement was arrived at on 29.10.2003. under the said agreement, the petitioner was granted the exclusive right to manage the said plot of land for a period of ten years from the date on which 'vacant possession' was handed over to it. certain other terms as to payments were agreed to between the parties. two clauses, 8.0 and 8.1 of the said agreement, which are of relevance, are as under:8.0 in the event of breach of warranties by any of the parties the other party can seek relief by way of specific performance of the contract.8.1 arbitration: any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in relation to this exclusive management agreement shall be settled by a panel of three arbitrators (the 'arbitration panel') in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 04 2006 (SC)

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ravi @ Nehru

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-04-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC2568; 2006CriLJ3305; JT2006(6)SC379; RLW2006(4)SC2739; 2006(6)SCALE441; 2006(2)LC910(SC)

h.k. sema, j.1. this appeal is preferred by the state of tamil nadu against the judgment and order dated 8.7.1999 passed by the high court. the respondent-accused ravi @ nehru was convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 376 ipc and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2,500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years. aggrieved thereby he preferred criminal appeal no. 768 of 1992 before the high court. the high court by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. hence this appeal by special leave. 2. briefly stated the prosecution's case is as follows:on 23.10.1989 at about 3.30 p.m. pw-2 arthi (victim girl) aged about five years was going to her aunt's house along with other children. at about 4.00 p.m. she came running to her house and informed her mother pw-1 that the accused took her to the bed room of his house and after removing her underwear and his pant placed her on his lap and pressed his male organ on her female organ. she cried in pain. on hearing her cry, two persons who were watching television in the front room of the house came there and scolded the accused. pw-1 the mother of the victim girl removed all the clothes of pw-2, which according to her contained blood stains. she also washed her clothes and gave a bath to her daughter with the help of pws 8 and 9 thereafter, she took pw-2 along with pws 8 and 9 to h.p.f. hospital where pw-7 dr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 2006 (SC)

Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Explorati ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-26-2006

Reported in : [2006(111)FLR409]; JT2006(7)SC151; (2006)IIILLJ482SC; (2006)4MLJ1212(SC); 2006(7)SCALE374; (2006)6SCC310

ar. lakshmanan, j.1. the appellant before us is the mineral exploration corporation employees' union (aituc) through its general secretary, respondent no. 1 is the mineral exploration corporation ltd., though its chairman and managing director, seminari hills, nagpur and the second respondent is the union of india through the secretary, ministry of labour, new delhi.2. the appellant-union preferred the above appeals against the common judgment and order dated 26.2.1999 of the high court of madhya pradesh at jabalpur in writ petition nos. 1981 and 5423 of 1998 whereby the high court allowed writ petition no. 1981 of 1998 filed by respondent no. 1 (corporation) and dismissed writ petition no. 5423 of 1998 filed by the union and has set aside the award passed by the industrial tribunal dated 24.3.1998.3. the appellant is a registered trade union affiliated to aituc. respondent no. 1 (corporation) is a public sector undertaking managed and controlled by the ministry of mines and is engaged in the exploration/discovery of mineral prospects/resources for rapid industrial growth in the country. respondent no. 1 is having various projects all over the country including their branches in the state of madhya pradesh and has employed approx. 5000 employees in various projects who are engaged in the exploration work in the projects.according to the union, the workmen engaged in mineral exploration corporation ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'the corporation' have completed minimum 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2006 (SC)

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, High ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2006

Reported in : AIR2007SC63; I(2007)BC147(SC); [2006]133CompCas915(SC); (2006)6CompLJ417(SC); 2007(3)CTC197; JT2006(12)SC603; 2006(10)SCALE28; (2006)10SCC709; [2006]72SCL130(SC); 2007(2)LC

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. appellant herein is a government company. it is engaged in conduct of chitties. m/s concert capital limited together with its sister concern m/s concert securities limited took loan from it. they failed to repay the said loan. a recovery proceeding was initiated against the defaulting company under the kerala revenue recovery act, 1968. a notification was issued in that behalf in terms of section 71 thereof.3. the properties belonging to the defaulting company were attached. in the meanwhile, the company went for voluntary liquidation. a provisional liquidator was appointed. appellant was informed thereabout. in the pending company proceeding being c.a. no. 165 of 2001, appellant filed an application seeking leave to proceed with the sale of the properties, which was objected to, inter alia, on the premise that the charge in respect of the alleged debt was not registered with the registrar of companies and, thus, it was an unsecured creditor. a counter affidavit thereto was filed by respondent. a prayer was also made by the official liquidator for a direction upon appellant to surrender the original documents. the application for leave to proceed with the revenue recovery proceeding was rejected by a learned single judge of the high court by its order dated 28.11.2003. an appeal there against being company appeal no. 14 of 2004 preferred by appellant was dismissed by a division bench of the high court. appellant is, thus, before us.4. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2006 (SC)

State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-26-2006

Reported in : [2007(1)JCR33(SC)]; JT2006(12)SC304; 2006(9)SCALE549; 2007(2)SLJ214(SC); 2007(2)LC1346(SC)

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. the bihar state subordinate service selection board issued an advertisement for appointment of 225 posts of live stock assistants in the animal husbandry department. respondent herein pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement applied therefore. he was declared successful. on or about 21.12.1992, respondent herein along with other successful candidates had been recommended by the board. appointment letters were issued to 195 successful candidates, out of the 200 candidates recommended by the commisson. by a memo. no. 323 dated 21.02.1992, an appointment letter was sent to respondent asking him to join the post within fifteen days. he failed to join. allegedly, on 20.07.1994, he requested director, department of animal husbandry, to issue an appointment letter to him, stating:i came to know that the department had appointed maximum candidates till date and the appointment proceeding is going on for the remaining advertised 225 posts. my serial number is more above in the recommended merit list and junior persons to me have been appointed but i have not received any appointment letter till date for my joining. during the period of enquiry, i have come to know that the appointment letter of the selected candidates have been forwarded, whereas i have not received appointment letter till now. in the above facts and circumstances, i, therefore, request you to kindly pass the appropriate order immediately for giving me appointment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2006 (SC)

Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. K.S. Narayan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-11-2006

Reported in : AIR2006SC3379; 2007(4)BomCR436; JT2006(9)SC27; 2006(6)KarLJ712; 2006(10)SCALE163; (2006)8SCC336

g.p. mathur, j. 1. the issue involved in these appeals, by special leave, is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. for the sake of convenience facts of civil appeal 8307 of 2002, which has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by karnataka high court in r.f.a. no. 406 of 2001, shall be stated.2. the respondent k.s. narayan filed original suit no. 5371 of 1989 in the court of city civil judge, bangalore, praying that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant bangalore development authority, their agents and servants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduled property and from demolishing any structure situate thereon. the case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows. the plaintiff purchased the property in dispute bearing no. 46, situated in banasawadi village, k.r. pura hobli, bangalore south taluk from s. narayana gowda by means of a registered sale deed dated 17.6.1985. the erstwhile owners of the property had obtained conversion certificate from the tehsildar and the property is situated in a lay out which is properly approved by obtaining conversion for non- agricultural use from the competent authority. the plaintiff applied for mutation entries and the same was granted in his favour. the property in dispute was not covered by any acquisition proceedings as neither notice of acquisition had been received nor any award .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2006 (SC)

Tulsan Vs. Pyare Lal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2006

Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3855(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(1)CHN92; 2007(2)CTC186; JT2006(9)SC254; 2006(10)SCALE69; (2006)10SCC782

s.b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. the parties are co-sharers. respondent no. 1 herein filed a suit against bir singh, respondent no. 3 as also appellant herein for permanent injunction. appellant is wife of respondent no. 2. a settlement was arrived at by and between the parties. the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing. it was filed before the court and accepted. a decree was passed on the basis of the terms of the said settlement. it was recorded therein:.now, the panchayat has settled the disputes amongst the parties to the effect that the portion where there is abadi and which is in the possession of which party, has been given to the same party and that there is no objection to the second party in this regard nor shall be there any objection in the future also. apart from it has been decided that the 1/3rd portion of the remaining lands shall go to pyare lal and 1/3rd portion shall go to amrit pal and mohan lal and ved prakash sons of kewal, grand sons of bir singh and the 1/3rd share shall go to bir singh son of shri asa ram. it has been further decided that all the criminal and civil cases going on between the parties shall be withdrawn and they shall be bound by the same. apart from the above, the will executed earlier shall be treated as cancelled and a new will shall be executed in the light of the above decision. all the three parties shall bear the expenses in equal-shares. for which none of the parties shall have any objection. it has been further .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 2006 (SC)

Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Ph ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-16-2006

Reported in : [2007(112)FLR474]; JT2006(10)SC216; 2006(12)SCALE1; (2007)1SCC408; 2007(2)SLJ467(SC); 2006AIRSCW5994; 2007-I-LLJ-580; 2007(2)KCCRSN94(SC)

markandey katju, j.1. leave granted.2. this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the uttaranchal high court in w.p. no. 3360 of 2001. by that judgment the high court has modified the award of the labour court, u.p., dehradun, to the extent that the workmen, in whose favour the award had been made, were allowed to be continued in the service of the appellant employer till their superannuation, and if their services were not required they should not be terminated except in accordance with industrial law. the high court further directed that the workmen in question should be paid wages like the regular employees performing the work and duties in the appellant-company. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. the facts of the case are that the appellant is a public sector undertaking which has a plant in rishikesh where it was manufacturing pharmaceuticals. the present dispute relates to the ten concerned employees who were appointed as casual workers on daily rate basis for the reason that they were dependants of employees dying in harness. such appointments were made by the appellant due to the persistent and prolonged agitation by the trade union since the appellant wanted to maintain industrial harmony, although there was no rule/policy for such compassionate appointment in the service of the appellant company, which was already over-staffed. as against 1049 sanctioned posts, there were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2006 (SC)

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Anil and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-07-2006

Reported in : [2007(112)FLR117]; JT2006(10)SC297; 2006(11)SCALE567; 2007(2)SLJ490(SC); 2007(1)SCC610; 2007ILLJ619

s.h. kapadia, j.1. what was the subject of the dispute decided by the labour court vide its award dated 5.7.1996 in adj case no. 31/90 to 44/90 this is the question which we are required to answer in this civil appeal.2. the facts giving rise to the civil appeal are as follows:bharat heavy electricals limited ('bhel') is the company registered under the companies act, 1956 having its registered office at new delhi. respondents 1 to 14 herein moved the conciliation officer under section 2-a of the uttar pradesh industrial disputes act, 1947 ('the said 1947 act') stating, that there was a principal employer; that k.p. singh was a contractor under whom they were working as contract labour; that the services were unlawfully terminated w.e.f. 1.12.1988, and accordingly, the contractor should be asked to take them back in service with full back wages w.e.f. 1.12.1988. on 19.7.1989 bhel filed its reply before the conciliation officer inter alia stating that, respondents 1 to 14 herein were engaged by the contractor; that the contractor was engaged by bhel; and, that there was no employer-employee relationship between bhel on one hand and the said respondents on the other hand.3. ultimately, the matter was referred to the labour court by way of a reference under section 4-k of the said 1947 act. before the labour court bhel contended, that respondents 1 to 14 were malis (gardeners); that they were engaged by the contractor; that these malis were required to clean parks; that in the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //